Document 



^ ■» f Documkj 

6oth Congress 1 SENATE \ No 66 

1st Session f *• 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES 



D 619 
.P7 
Copy 2 



! 



AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED 

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 

AT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, ON 

JUNE 29, 1917 



BY 

HON. ATLEE POMERENE 



s \u 



# H 



^ 

>i*i 




PRESENTED BY MR. TOWNSEND 
July 18, 1917 (Calendar Day, July 20, 1917).— Ordered to be printed. 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

, 1917 

. 



-pi 



o^ A 



ii 



0. of D. 
AUG 13 1917 



p 



afc*' 






OUR INCREASING NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL 
RESPONSIBILITIES. 

The United States is a world power. We are a world power 
whether we wish it or not. We can not escape its responsibilities if 
we would, and we would not if we could. Nations, like men, can 
not live unto themselves alone. Destiny has marked out our course. 
The fathers of the Republic builded wisely, but I can not conceive 
that even they knew to what end their first steps would lead in 
making history. The peals of Liberty Bell have rung 'round the 
world. The shot at Bunker Hill was but the precursor of the thun- 
derous roar of the cannon of democracy at Verdun. 

Jn 1776 the democracy of the thirteen Colonies pitted itself against 
the divine right of King George III. Now the democracy of the 
world is engaged in a life struggle against the divine right of Kaiser 
Wilhelm. The democracy of the thirteen Colonies did not fail; the 
democracy of the world will not fail. 

On August 1, 1914, civilized mankind was appalled to learn of 
the declaration of war and the beginning of hostilities. Christian 
nations could not believe that causes so trivial as those which seemed 
to divide Austria and Serbia would lead to a world cataclysm. 

At first blush it would seem that, even in its widest ramifications, 
the clash of giant European nations ought not to reach the far-off 
shores of America. But he who entertains such a thought fails to 
take into consideration the changed conditions since first our Nation 
had birth. 

Then we were thirteen separate Colonies with 3,000,000 of people. 
We occupied a comparatively narrow strip along the Atlantic sea- 
board. We were more than 3,000 miles distant from Europe, and a 
journey of more than 30 days. Then our people could have been 
blotted off the face of the earth and the rest of mankind would 
scarcely have been sensible of the loss. 

How changed the situation now. Our 3,000,000 have multiplied to 
110,000,000; our thirteen Colonies to forty-eight empire States; our 
foreign commerce, which in 1830 amounted to $144,000,000, has mul- 
tiplied by leaps and bounds until it reaches annually the stupendous 
sum of more than six billions. The thirty days' trip across the waters 
has been reduced to six. The surplus productions of our farms and 
factories and mines find their way to the four corners of the earth. 
Our people, seeking new outlets for trade, are to be found in every 
clime and every nation, and no fate can befall any one of the family 
of nations without seriously affecting our own welfare. 

If my address shall to-day seem to depart from the beaten path 
which is-usually marked out for those who may have the honor to 
appear before a convention of lawyers, the only excuse that I shall 
offer is that we are living in the most momentous day of the world's 



4 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

history; that lawyers always have played and always will play a 
leading part in the public and political" thought of the Nation; and 
that now we, as members of the legal profession, like men in every 
profession, in every line of business, and in every trade, are giving 
our first efforts to the solution of the problems which are engrossing 
the attention of mankind to the end that reason may resume her 
sway and peace be restored to the world. 

Trie purpose of our national existence was, and is, in the language 
of the Constitution— 

To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. 

In the light of our national history and the events of the last three 
years, let us consider what we have done and what we ought to do in 
the future, both from a standpoint of power and policy. 

POWERS OF THE NATION. 

I take it everyone will concede that, as a member of the family of 
nations, Ave are clothed with the full powers of sovereignty. Defin- 
ing our position from a political standpoint we are as great, but no 
greater, than any other nation clothed with equal privileges and 
equal powers. If we were not we would be less than sovereign, and 
that no true American ever would admit. Considered from a domes- 
tic standpoint, we have a divided sovereignty — State and National — 
but the National Government under the Constitution gives us full 
and plenary power to do whatever the wisdom of the Nation may 
require, so far as our international affairs are concerned. 

The President is given the power, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, to make treaties, and the only limitation upon 
this power is that he can make them "provided two-thirds of the 
Senators present concur." . Under this power, independent of the 
question of national sovereignty, we have made treaties with every 
nation of the world, defining and controlling our political and com- 
mercial relations, and when it pleased our purposes we modified them 
or abrogated them entirely. We have made treaties of peace and 
arbitration for the amicable adjustment of international disputes. 
Every conceivable phase of our international powers and relations 
have at one time or another been dealt with in our sovereign or 
constitutional capacity. 

The power, therefore, to do that which we have done or which we 
may hereafter do, whether considered from a standpoint of national 
sovereignt}^ or from the defined authority of the Constitution, can 
not be questioned. As indicating the judicial view of our sovereign 
powers, the case of Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co. (13 Peter, 
415) is interesting. The court says: 

Can there be any doubt that when the executive branch of the Government, 
which is charged with our foreign relations, shall, in its correspondence with a 
foreign nation, assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or 
country it is conclusive on the judicial department? And in this view it is 
not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the court to determine, whether 
the executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know that in the exercise 
of his constitutional functions he has decided the question. Having done this 
under the responsibilities which belong to him, it is obligatory on the people- 
and government of the Union. 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 5 

OUR POLICY. 

But when it comes to a consideration" of the policies which we have 
pursued up to date or which we may adopt hereafter there is or may 
arise serious differences of opinion. 

It has been a part of our political philosophy that we should 
" avoid entangling alliances with foreign countries." 

Washington, in his Farewell Address, said : 

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote 
relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of 
which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be 
unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes 
of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or 
enmities. 

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different 
course. 

Again, in this message, he added : " It is our true policy to steer 
clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world ; " 
but he added, significantly, " so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty 
to do it." 

And again in this same message he says : 

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respect- 
able defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for 
extraordinary emergencies. 

" Safety first " seemed to him then to be the law of our national 
life, and it ought to be our rule of conduct now. 

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AS IT INFLUENCES OUR NATIONAL LIFE. 

The Government of the United States was the first real experiment 
in democracy in modern times. Europe recognized the divine right 
of kings, America the divine right of the individual. Our thoughts, 
our acts, our traditions, our entire history, have been a constant effort 
and tendency toward the development of democratic government. 
Except the encouragement that we received from France during the 
War of the Revolution, the energies of every European Government 
were directed against the birth of democratic influence in the Old 
World, and for the most part toward the throttling of democratic 
tendencies in the New World. The dominating trend of European 
thought upon this subject reached its climax in the organization of 
the holy alliance in Paris, by which Prussia, Austria, and Eussia 
united "to defend religion and morality as what they believe to be 
the only sure foundation for them — government by divine right." 
About the same time, or soon thereafter, the monarchy was restored 
in France, and at the Congress of Verona they resolved " That the 
system of representative government is equally incompatible with 
the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the 
people is with the divine right." And these nations engaged " mutu- 
ally and in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put 
an end to the system of representative governments in whatsoever 
country it may exist in Europe and to prevent its being introduced in 
those countries where it is not yet known." Whatever its purpose 
may have been, this language was comprehensive enough to voice 
opposition to the fundamental principles of a republican or repre- 
sentative government in South America or wherever else attempted. 



6 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

The fathers of the Republic, as well as the statesmen of our early 
history, were exceedingly jealous of the system of government we 
had established in this country and were determined to protect it by 
all reasonable means within their power. 

Spain was struggling to continue her possessions in America. 
Russia was seeking to extend her domain along the Pacific coast, 
and France was looking with eager eyes to Mexico. 

Our experience with the monarchical governments of the Old 
World were so unhappy that the United States sought by every 
means to protect itself against the extension of the political system 
of the Old World to the American Continent. The prevailing 
sentiment of the early part of the nineteenth century was crystallized 
into what later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. For the 
purposes of this address, it will not be necessary to go into the pre- 
liminary history leading up to the pronunciamento by James Monroe, 
but it will suffice to quote from him the following extract: 

The American Continents, by the free and independent condition which they 
have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects 
for future colonization by any European powers. 

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves, we 
have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. 
* * * The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in 
this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which 
exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which 
has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and matured by 
the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed 
unexampled felicity, this whole Nation is devoted. 

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing be- 
tween the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider 
any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemi- 
sphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or 
dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not 
interfere, but with the Governments who have declared their independence 
and maintained it and whose independence we have on great consideration 
and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for 
the purpose of opposing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny 
by any other European power in any other light than as the manifestation of 
an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. 

It may be urged that the nations of Europe and of South America 
are distinct sovereignties and, therefore, they have the right to con- 
trol their own relations without let or hindrance from the United 
States. Within certain limitations, this is true, but experience has 
taught us to be on our guard against European aggressions whether 
aimed at our country directly or indirectly by their encroachments 
against neighboring peoples in America, similarly situated and or- 
ganized. Our real purpose is not to interfere with the affairs of any 
nation so long as it respects our rights at home or abroad. Under 
the Monroe doctrine, our purpose is not to impose ourselves upon 
South America or unnecessarily to interfere with the relations be- 
tween those countries and the governments of the Old World. The 
whole Nation, in the language of Monroe, is devoted " to the defense 
of our own." The extension of the European systems in this hemis- 
phere was believed " dangerous to our peace and safety," and hence 
we declared very frankly, because we believed it necessary to our de- 
fense to say to the world, that " any interposition for the purpose of 
opposing " the independent nations of America by any European 
power would be regarded " as a manifestation of an unfriendly dis- 
position toward the United States." 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 7 

Later a dispute arose between Great Britain and Venezuela over 
the boundary line between Venezeula and British Guiana. Secretary 
of State Olney demanded arbitration of the claims of Venezuela and 
in discussing the Monroe doctrine, said : 

That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean make any permanent 
political union between a European and an American State unnatural and inex- 
pedient can hardly be denied. * * * The States of America, South as well 
as North, by geographical proximity, by natural sympathy, by similarity of 
governmental constitutions, are friends and allies cornrnercially and politically 
of the United States. * * * To-day the United States is practically sov- 
ereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines 
its interposition. * * * There is, then, a doctrine of American public law 
well founded in principle and abundantly secured by precedent, which entitles 
and requires the United States to treat as an injury to itself and forcible 
assumption by a European power of political control over an American State. 

This doctrine, of course, was denied by Great Britain, but it rep- 
resented the American view that it was necessary for our own pro- 
tection. It must be borne in mind that the United States is at all 
times a sovereign people, and it is at all times- necessary to defend 
this sovereignty. No student of American institutions would for a 
moment attempt to defend our interferences in the relations between 
two sovereign powers unless, in his judgment, the exigencies of our 
national security required it. 

President Cleveland said in this same controversy : 

The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international 
law which arc based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights 
protected and its just claims enforced. 

If, then, during our earlier history, when we were comparatively 
small, our limited intercourse with other nations required the promul- 
gation of the Monroe doctrine for our safety, ought we not now. when 
we are confronted by other and even graver dangers, to stand ready 
to defend that doctrine and even to extend the application of the 
principles of this doctrine if the legitimate defense of American 
institutions should seem to require it? 

Should not our international cares and concerns keep pace with 
our growth as a Nation and the extent of our commercial and politi- 
cal relations abroad, and the corresponding necessity to protect 
them ? 

We have always been very careful not to become involved in inter- 
national matters which do not concern ourselves. We have been so 
very careful in this respect that even in the ratification of The 
Hague conventions the Senate consented to them, subject to the dec- 
laration made by the delegates of the United States before signing 
them that " nothing contained in this convention shall be so con- 
strued as to require the United States of America to depart from its 
traditional policy of not intruding upon or interfering with or 
entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal 
administration of any foreign state ; nor shall anything contained in 
the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the 
United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American 
questions." 

And I assume that this principle of noninterference in the affairs 
of Europe and of our opposition to Europe's transgressing in the 
affairs of America is still the dominating conviction of the intelligent 
American thought. But it must follow that when the administration 



8 OUE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

of other nations is so conducted that it encroaches upon American 
rights, whether on land or at sea, they will become the object of our 
careful concern, to the end that America and American institutions 
shall be respected everywhere ; and the extent to which we may be 
subjected to their aggressions will be the measure of our respectful 
attention to them. 

EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN PEACE. 

Our Government has never sought war. It has always aimed to 
maintain the peace of the world. Soon after hostilities began, the 
President, on behalf of this great American Republic, tendered his 
good offices to the belligerent powers, hoping and praying that some 
plan might be devised whereby the awful slaughter could be brought 
to a close, and there was not a day from that time until the Con- 
gress passed the joint resolution declaring a state of war that we 
were not ready to aid in the restoration of peace. Our commerce was 
interfered with by both Great Britain and Germany. Great Britain, 
having more regard for her military necessities than for her observ- 
ance of her obligations to ourselves, continued to disturb our ship- 
ping, but promised indemnity wherever damage was done, and in 
many instances has paid it. Germany not only interfered with our 
commerce, but by her methods of warfare sank our ships, as well as 
other neutral and enemy ships, having on board our people, and sent 
to an untimely grave noncombatants, women and children, who were 
aboard. This was done without warning or notice, and without 
caring for the safety of those aboard, in violation of every principle 
of international law since history began. 

When the Lusitania was destroyed on the 7th day of May, 1915, 
by order of the German Admiralty, the German press reported that 
a German submarine had sunk the " armed cruiser Lusitania " and 
the Berlin authorities gave a half holiday to the children in the 
schools to celebrate the great victory, thus making it an occasion 
for rejoicing. The instincts of humanity ought to have suggested 
the dropping of a tear for the innocent lives that had been lost and 
for those at home who had been bereaved. 

After long delay and an exchange of many diplomatic notes over 
this incident, the German Imperial Government admitted that she 
was wrong and America was right. On the 4th of May, von Jagow, 
secretary of state for foreign affairs, advised our Government that 
the German naval forces were given the following orders : 

In accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction 
of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within 
and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without 
warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape 
or offer resistance. 

While there is a reservation in this note under which their former 
methods might be resumed in the event that we did not succeed in get- 
ting Great Britain to comply with the demands of Germany, every- 
one felt that a great diplomatic victory had been won and that the 
German Imperial Government, having recognized the rule of inter- 
national law, would not resume its violation. It now transpires that 
the Kaiser's real purpose was to delay this method of warfare until 
his submarine fleet could be completed and then it would be renewed 
with a ruthlessness and frightfulness unprecedented. 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

Finally, without airy previous notice of his intention, on the 31st 
day of January, 1917, when his submarine fleet was ready, notice 
was given that one day thereafter the former methods of warfare 
would begin and all ships met within forbidden zones would be sunk. 

These zones include the seas around Great Britain, France, Italy, 
and the eastern Mediterranean. They cover an area through which 
nine-tenths of our American shipping must pass. By this order 
American and neutral shipping is only permitted to navigate the 
Mediterranean Sea through a lane 20 miles wide leading to Greece. 
We can not go to Italy or France. We can only go' to Holland, 
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden by sailing very far north. The 
barred zone in the Atlantic is about 1,400 miles long and 1,000 miles 
wide, and to Great Britain after February 1, 1917, the German Im- 
perial Government munificiently provided that regular American 
passenger steamers could continue to sail undisturbed if the port of 
destination was Falmouth, if the course of sailing was via the Scilly 
Islands, and if the steamers should be marked — 

" on ship's hull and superstructure three vertical stripes 1 meter wide, each to be 
painted alternately white and red. Each must show a large flag checkered 
white and red, and on the stern the American national flag." 

The vessels must be well lighted throughout and one steamer a 
week can sail in each direction to arrive at Falmouth on Sunday and 
to depart from Falmouth on Wednesday, and no contraband can be 
carried. 

Could any American with red blood in his veins and the memory 
of his fathers fresh in mind submit to this arbitrary rule by a mili- 
tary despot who for years has been obsessed with the belief that the 
entire human race was intended for his despotic sway and whose sole 
code of morals is the rule of might? 

In the course of all these outrages the President was very patient 
and would not permit himself to believe that, in this age, the German 
Imperial Government, after admitting its former course was in con- 
travention of every principle of international law, would resume the 
same methods of warfare. But experience has demonstrated that 
while the German Imperial Government has advanced in every field 
of art and science, it has forgotten the Decalogue and the Sermon 
on the Mount. What were a hundred millions of people to do ? Sur- 
render the freedom of the seas for which they fought the war of 
1812? Abjectly submit to this would-be arbiter of the world? Or 
were we to speak like a nation of freemen, who have faith in right 
and justice as among all the peoples of the world? Could we con- 
tinue at peace with such a nation and maintain our self-respect? Do 
we not know that Great Britain and France and Italy and the other 
allies are fighting the battles of humanity — our battles as well as 
theirs ? Is it possible that any American does not have pride enough 
in his heart to say " We can not and must not allow these allies to 
fight our battles without taking part and going to the trenches if 
need be, to stand shoulder to shoulder with them while fighting for 
the freedom of the world " ? 

What manner of man is this German Kaiser? When Mr. Bryan 
was Secretary of State he negotiated and the Senate ratified 29 peace 
treaties, the purpose of which is to bring about settlement of inter- 
national disputes without resorting to the arbitrament of arms. The 



10 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

Kaiser was approached and asked to sign a similar treaty with 
the United States. His reply was, in substance, " Why should I sign 
such a treaty? I have an army that is strong enough to take what I 
think -is right for me to take." 

GERMANY IN THE PRESENT WAR. 

For more than 40 years succeeding the Franco-Prussian War the 
house of Hohenzollern pretended to be working for the preservation 
of the peace of Europe. All that time they were building armies 
and navies for a world conquest. The question with them was not 
" Shall we begin the war ? " It was, " When shall we begin it ? " 

All the allies have given to the world their diplomatic correspond- 
ence with one another and with the Teutonic nations leading up to 
the war. Germany, Austria, and Turkey, in a conspiracy to destroy 
the world's peace, never published their correspondence. They have 
conducted the war with a cruelty and a brutality characteristic of 
the medieval ages. Beneath a veneer of civilization the German Im- 
perial Government has concealed the savagery of the Hun and the 
Goth. It has been worse than Indian savagery. It is scientific 
savagery. 

The controversy between Austria and Serbia was seized upon by 
the Kaiser as a pretext for doing what he had been years preparing 
to do. He pretended to be for peace. Serbia conceded all the de- 
mands of Austria save one. The Czar of the Russias asked the Kaiser 
to submit that single question to arbitration at The Hague. It, Serbia 
could not grant, without surrendering her sovereignty. The Kaiser 
ignored his treaties with Belgium, declaring them " scraps of paper.'' 
He invaded Belgium's territory, .then admitted his wrong, then 
promised Belgium indemnity after the war was over. But still con- 
tinues to occupy the little Kingdom, and now the German press 
speaks of annexing it. He deports Belgian men, women, and girls, 
and practically enslaves them. His navies sink our ships and the 
ships of neutrals and enemies alike without warning and without 
caring for the lives and safety of the passengers and crew. He bom- 
barded the undefended towns and cities of Scarborough and Hull 
and other municipalities, with his Zeppelins in the night season, and 
drops bombs and explosives upon sleeping men, women, and children. 
He takes the territoiy of neutral nations, their live stock, their food 
supplies. He destroys their orchards and their gardens and leaves 
the innocent people to suffer the pangs of starvation and hunger. 
He knows the arts and sciences, but he has not learned the Golden 
Rule. He scattered his spies in every city and town of our country 
while Ave were at peace. His embassy was the plotting place for the 
destruction of our manufacturing plants and of our transportation 
and shipping facilities. While enjoying our hospitality the German 
ambassador and his suite violated our neutrality. The Kaiser's 
emissaries in this country were constantly and are now sowing seeds 
of dissension among our people. They attempted to make our people 
believe that we were violating international law by manufacturing 
and selling arms to the allies, while everybody knows, if he cares to 
know, that it was the Kaiser's determined, stand at The Hague which 
more than any other one influence led to the continuance of the prac- 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 11 

tice of allowing a neutral nation to sell arms to belligerents in any 
way. And everybody knows who cares to know that for more than 
25 years Germany has been selling arms and munitions to every bel- 
ligerent in every war, including Spain and the United States during 
the Spanish-American War. 

While professing the greatest friendship for us, the German Im- 
perial Government has lost no opportunity to embarrass us. During 
our war with Spain it sought to induce the European powers to 
aid the cause of Spain against us, and had it not been for the friendly 
attitude of Great Britain it might have succeeded. 

I shall not take the time to discuss the conduct of the German 
fleet at Samoa or of Admiral Deiderich's squadron in Manila Bay, 
or in Subig Bay, or the Kaiser's determination to take possession of 
the ports of Venezuela, an account of which has recently been given 
by Col. Boosevelt. 

THE PRUSSIAN DOCTRINE OF THE STATE AND WAR. 

In the discussion thus far we have seen that the German Imperial 
Government has been guilty of all sorts of barbarities, -both on land 
and on sea. Military necessity seems to be the only limitation placed 
upon its operations, if. indeed, military necessity even has placed any 
restrictions upon them. No military man within my knowledge has 
been able to suggest any military advantage which has been gained 
by the repeated Zeppelin outrages in Great Britain, and particularly 
in London. They have killed few soldiers. They have destroyed by 
their bombs innocent women and children and noncombatants. 

It may be claimed that the military and naval operations have been 
so vast in extent, so intensive, and for so long a period of time that 
men have lost their poise and, because of the nervous condition thus 
brought about, have been tempted to do many things in many ways 
which otherwise would not have been thought of or indulged in. I 
wish this explanation could be truthfully made, but it can not be. 
The present conduct of the war is but the result of past and current 
teachings. When the Kaiser violated the neutrality of Belgium he 
conducted a campaign of " frightfulness," to use a word which ap- 
peared in all the German literature bearing upon the subject. He 
aimed to terrorize. But even this course was not the result of imme^ 
diate military necessity. It was but the natural outgrowth of the 
teachings of the German Imperial Government and of Germany's 
foremost political thinkers covering a period of years. 

One of their most cherished writers is Heinrich von_ Treitschke. 
Let me quote somewhat at length from his work on " Politics." Con- 
sider the following : 

Without war no State could be. All those we know of arose from war and 
the protection of their members by armed force remains their primary and 
essential task. War, therefore, will endure to the end of history, as long as 
there is multiplicity of States. The laws of human thought and of human 
nature forbid any alternative. Neither is one to be wished for. 

That is the thought of medievalism. Again : 

The great strides which civilization makes against barbarism and unreason 
are only made actual by the sword. Between civilized nations, also, war is 
the form of litigation by\vhich states make their claims valid. The arguments 
brought forth in these terrible lawsuits of the nations compel as no argument 



12 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

in civil suits can ever do. Often, as we have tried by theory to convince the 
small states that Prussia alone can be the leader in Germany, we had to pro- 
duce the final proof upon the battlefields of Bohemia and the Main. 

To him, most undoubtedly, as he says, " War is the one remedy for 
an ailing nation." 

We can understand the Kaiser's methods when we remember that 
Treitschke says approvingly: 

It was Machiavelli who laid down the maxim that when the state's salva- 
tion is at stake, there must be no inquiry into the purity of the means em- 
ployed. Only let the state be secured, and no one will condemn them. 

When Belgium was invaded the German statesmen admitted their 
wrong, but they have not made restitution. The American code of 
morality will not permit the American mind to sanction this course 
of conduct. 

Another brief extract from Treitschke permits us to get the Im- 
perial German Government's viewpoint. I quote: 

In the year 1849 the thrones of all the little German princes tottered. 
Frederick William took a perfectly justifiable step when he marched Prussian 
troops into Saxony and Bavaria, and restored order there. But then came 
his deadly crime. Were the Prussians there to shed their blood for Bavaria 
or Saxony? An enduring gain ought to have been secured for Prussia. She 
held the pigmies in the hollow of her hand. It was only necessary to leave 
the troops there until the rulers had submitted to the dominion of the new 
German Empire, but instead the King simply allowed them to withdraw, and 
was mocked by the princelings he had rescued, the moment his back was turned. 
That was no less than idiotic weakness and the Prussian blood was shed to 
no purpose. 

Eecently a German officer, Rentelin, was convicted in the United 
States district court of New York. The evidence, in brief, showed 
that with German gold he hired men to dynamite manufacturing 
plants, bridges, property of public-service corporations, and hired 
men to incite strikes against employing companies. He was con- 
nected with the German embassy in the United States, whose every 
member, from the ambassador down, should have been inspired by a 
moral sense so high as to forbid the violation of our hospitality. It 
shocks the American conscience, but we will not be surprised if we 
remember the further teachings of Von Treitschke. In speaking of 
the negotiations between the French Minister Benedetti and Bis- 
marck, prior to the Franco-Prussian Avar, he says : 

Was he [Bismarck] not acting morally in the fullest sense when he put off 
Benedetti's impudent demands with half promises of Germany's agreement? 
Under the same conditions of latent war we may use the same arguments to 
defend the bribery of another State. It is absurd to bluster about morality in 
the face of such circumstances or to expect a State to confront them with a 
catechism in its hand. Before the outbreak of the Seven Years' War Frederick 
had a premonition of the storm about to burst over his little Kingdom. He 
bribed two Saxon-Polish secretaries in AVarsaw and Dresden and received infor- 
mation from them which happily proved exaggerated. AVhen the salvation of 
his noble Prussia hung in the balance, should King Frederick have boggled over 
a respect for the incorruptibility of officialdom in the principality of Saxony? 
Every State knows what it may expect of the other. There is not one which 
would not stoop to spying when circumstances require it. It is only important 
not to overrate the value of the methods which must be permitted to the foreign 
office of every great nation, for the role they play is not an important one. 

Listen further to this teacher of government moralit} r . He says: 

The statesman has no need to warm his hands with smug self-laudation at 
the smoking ruins of his Fatherland and comfort himself by saying " I have 
never lied." This is the monkish type of virtue. 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 13 

Now we understand the famous Zimmermann note which he sent on 
January 19, 1917, from Berlin, through the German ambassador in 
the United States, Von Bernstorff, to the German minister at Mexico, 
Von Eckhart. He tells Von Eckhart that on the 1st of February the 
German Imperial Government intends to begin submarine warfare 
unrestricted. They will endeavor to keep neutral the United States 
in spite of this. If they are not successful in this course, they pro- 
pose an alliance with Mexico to make war together and together make 
peace. They promise financial support, and it is understood that 
Mexico shall reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and 
Arizona. The German minister in Mexico is instructed to inform 
the President of Mexico of this plan in the greatest confidence, and 
when war breaks out, if it does, with the United States, the President 
of Mexico is urged to communicate with Japan and to offer to mediate 
between Germany and Japan. 

WAR WITH GERMANY INEVITABLE. 

Some few people — a very few people — feel that we could have 
avoided going into this war. To my mind, it was inevitable. A con- 
test between the German Imperial Government and the United States 
was only a question of time. That the gage of battle should be 
thrown down now, when we have the assistance of our allies, seems 
providential. Germany's attempt to intrude herself in our affairs 
with Spain during the Spanish War and in the Philippines, coupled 
with the repeated declarations by German officials and newspapers, 
that an indemnity would have been demanded from the United States 
because we allowed our nationals to sell arms and munitions to the 
allies, and their constant trampling upon our rights at sea, ought to 
be sufficient to forewarn us and to forearm us, particularly when we 
have in mind the fate of the smaller nations that have stood in the 
way of the ambitions of Teutonic militarism. 

Here again we can learn from Von Treitschke. He says : 
Germany must " see to it that the outcome of our next successful 
war must be the acquisition of colonies by any possible means." And 
note especially his view of the humbler peoples of the world. I quote : 

The civilizing of a barbarian people is the best achievement. The alternatives 
before it are extirpation or absorption. The Germans let the primitive Prus- 
sian tribes deckle whether they should be put to the sword or thoroughly Ger- 
manized. Cruel as these processes of transformation may be, they are a 
blessing for humanity. 

Again : 

We may depend upon the re-Germanizing of Alsace, but not of Livonia and 
Kurland. There no other course is open to us but to keep the subject race in as 
uncivilized a condition as possible, ami thus prevent them from becoming a 
danger to the handful of their conquerors. 

Von Treitschke does not stand alone' in the expression of the senti- 
ments just quoted. His has been the dominating thought in the Ger- 
man imperial public mind for many years. 

" War,'' says Frederick the Great, " opens the most fruitful field 
to every virtue." 

Again, he says : 

War is elevating because the individual disappears before the great conception 
of the state. 



14 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

Another great German writer who has impressed himself upon the 
thought of the German world is Bernhardi. In his " Germany and 
the Next War," published in 1911, he says: 

The agitation for peace introduces a new element of weakness, dissension, 
and indecision into the divisions of our national and party life. 

Our people must learn to see that the maintenance of peace never can or 
may be the goal of a policy. The policy of a great state has positive aims. It 
must not only be conscious that in momentous questions which influence defi- 
nitely the entire development of a nation the appeal to arms is a sacred right 
of the state, but it must keep this conviction fresh in the national conscious- 
ness. The inevitableness, the idealism, and the blessing of war as an indis- 
pensable and stimulating law of development must he repeatedly emphasized. 
The apostles of the peace idea must be confronted with Goethe's manly words: 

" Dreams of a peaceful day? 
Let him dream who may ! 
• War ' is our rallying cry — 
Onward to victory ! " 

Again, he quotes approvingly Schiller : 

"Man is stunted by peaceful days: 
In idle repose his courage decays. 
Law is the weakling's game. 
Law makes the world the same. 
But in war man's strength is seen — 
War ennobles all that is mean — 
Even the coward belies his name." 

But it is not necessary to quote more at length from Bernhardi. 
His conclusion is — and I quote his words : 

If we sum up our arguments we shall see that from the most opposite aspects 
the efforts directed toward the abolition of war must not only be termed foolish 
but absolutely immoral and must be stigmatized as unworthy of the human race. 

Repeating for the purpose of emphasis we are at war with a 
Nation which for 40 years has been preparing itself for world con- 
quest. Its vast armament on land and sea has been and is a menace 
to the democracy of the world. While its people have perfected 
themselves in many of the arts of peace, it has only been an incident 
to the war power — the power of the State. The individual has lost 
his identity and he has become a part of a vast military machine. 
Repeatedly, since the war of 1870, there have been rumblings of 
a breaking of the peace in Europe. In later years they have 
extended to the American Continent. With the German Impe- 
rial Government we are now at war There is as much conflict 
between its political ideas and ours as there is or will be between its 
arms and ours. It has set out for world conquest. Our American 
Government is now threatened by this military autocracy to a greater 
extent than Ave Avere ever threatened by any foreign power in attempt- 
ing to colonize any part of the American Continent. If the prompt- 
ings of national safety have been a sufficient motive for us to defend 
the Monroe doctrine since it was first enunciated the same principle 
of national safety compels us to have clue regard to other dangers 
equally hostile to our sovereignty, whether they be located here or 
in continental Europe. World democracy and world autocracy are 
at Avar. World autocracy, Avhether in arms or as doctrinaire, can not 
and will not harmonize with world democracy. In the forceful lan- 
guage of Senator Root : 

The world can nor live half democratic and half autocratic. It must be all 
democracy or all autocracy. 



OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 15 

It must be and it will be ! Do not misunderstand me ; I do not 
for one moment believe that we ought to interfere with the purely 
domestic affairs of an} 7 other nation on earth; but, gentlemen, when 
in the administration of its domestic affairs by any Government it 
so conducts them at home or abroad as to be a constant menace to 
the peace of the world the same sentiments which inspired us to 
fight for our liberties in 1776 must lead us now in the world conquest 
in 1917. For the safety of our national sovereignty we announced 
and have defended the Monroe doctrine. For the same reason we 
entered into this war. For the same reason we will continue in it 
until we shall win. For the same reason we must take our seat at 
the council table and lend a hand in drafting the terms of peace. 

OUR FUTURE RESPONSIBILITY. 

What shall be our program, then? In this great world catastrophe 
it is not given to the human mind to see a year or even a month in 
advance what the duty of the hour may require. " Sufficient unto the 
day is the evil thereof/' 

But this much I believe : 

First. We ought to use all our powers of moral suasion to induce 
the nations of the world to adopt the policy of gradual disarmament. 
Most of the civilized nations have favored this program for years. 
Germany, and Germany alone, has opposed it. As a result, while Ger- 
many was adding to her forces on land and on sea. the other nations 
of the world, half suspicious and yet half deceived by Germany's 
siren song of peace, were only either half prepared or not at all pre- 
pared when the trumpet call to battle sounded. The world's peace 
can not be safe when one nation is fully armed and the others only 
partially armed. That every nation should be fully armed or even 
half armed is a waste of men and of treasure. Why, then, should we 
not, in the interest of safety, use the good offices of this great Gov- 
ernment to bring about disarmament? It should not be within the 
power of the German Imperial Government, or any other Govern- 
ment, to threaten the safety of the world. 

As we persisted in our efforts for world peace before this world 
war began, so after the war shall have been ended we must still 
continue the battle for peace by diplomacy, by negotiation, by arbi- 
tration, rather than by force of arms. 

Second. What further measures shall be adopted ? Shall there be 
a League of Peace; and if so, with what powers shall it be vested? 
That something along this line must be attempted is apparent. 
Maybe it will not succeed ; maybe it will fail, but certain it is, it can 
not be a greater failure in the maintenance of peace than past meth- 
ods. If there is a League of Peace empowered to enter decrees, after 
full investigation and full hearing, by what power shall they be en- 
forced? My belief is that the power of the world's public opinion 
will, in most instances, be sufficient to enforce decrees which are im- 
partially entered. Will it be necessary to employ armies and navies 
subject to the control and direction of the League of Peace? These 
are questions which must be intrusted to the President of the Repub- 
lic, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, under the guid- 
ance of true American sentiment. These are questions which are ap- 



y 



16 OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 

proaching us and which we must meet. Those in authority will wel- 
come and profit by the advice of the world's thinkers everywhere, and 
I know of no body of men who can be of more service in this great 
task than the lawyers of America. But whatever shall be done, if it 
is to be of profit to the nation and to the world, must be undertaken 
by the practical minds of the world, and not bv visionary dreamers 
and theorists. Statesmen must take counsel of fact, not of fiction. 
A pound of fact is worth a ton of theory. America can not build 
a Chinese wall about her, and thus confined perform her functions 
and play her part on the world's great stage. Destiny calls America 
to lead, and she will lead, taking counsel of the world's wisdom. We 
must not be affrighted because a hundred millions of people in 1017 
must play a more important part in world's affairs than did three 
millions of people 140 years ago. 

" There's a divinity that shapes our ends, 
Rough-hew them how we will." 



o 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 221 698 9 # 



/ 






< 



if 

019 221 698 9 



